Ethan Allen on God, Reason, Prayer, & Religion

In this final installment of our special series on the Founding Fathers and their thoughts on God, Religion, & the Divine, we move to farmer, politician, and guerilla revolutionary leader Ethan Allen, who perhaps is best known for leading the Green Mountain Boys (and other fighters) in their raid and capture Fort Ticonderoga, a strategic victory which severely hampered communication between the northern and southern units of the British army.

Like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen might be best described as a Progressive Christian Deist who believed reason must take a paramount place in religious activity. The following passage is taken from Section IV of Ethan Allen’s book, Reason: The Only Oracle of Man (1784), and deals with the subject of prayer. In synch with the philosophy of prayer that guides our free book The Living Hour: The Lord’s Prayer for Daily, Allen writes:

Whoever has a just sense of the absolute perfection of God, and of their own imperfection, and natural subjection to his providence, cannot but from thence infer the impropriety of praying or supplicating to God, for this, that, or the other thing; or of remonstrating against his providence: inasmuch, as “known to God are all our wants;” and as we know, that we ourselves are inadequate judges of what would be best for us, all things considered.

To pray for any thing, which we can obtain by the due application of our natural powers, and neglect the means of procuring it, is impertinence and laziness in the abstract; and to pray for that which God in the course of his providence, has put out of our power to obtain, is only murmuring against God, and finding fault with his providence, or acting the inconsiderate part of a child; for example, to pray for more wisdom, understanding, grace or faith; for a more robust constitution, handsomer figure, or more of a gigantic size, would be the same as tolling God, that we are dissatisfied with our inferiority in the order of being; that neither our souls nor bodies suit us; that he has been too sparing of his beneficence; that we want more wisdom, and organs better fitted for show, agility and superiority.

But we ought to consider, that “we cannot add one Cubit to our stature,” or alter the construction of our organic frame; and that our mental talents are finite; and that in a vast variety of proportions and disproportions, as our Heavenly Father in his order of nature, and scale of being saw fit; who has nevertheless for the encouragement of intelligent nature ordained, that it shall be capable of improvement, and consequently of enlargement; therefore, “whosoever lacketh wisdom,” instead of “asking it of God,” let him improve what he has, that he may enlarge the original stock; this is all the possible way of gaining in wisdom and knowledge, a competency of which will regulate our faith. But it is too common for great faith and little knowledge to unite in the same person; such persons are beyond the reach of argument and their faith immovable, though it cannot remove mountains.

The only way to procure food, raiment, or the necessaries or conveniences of life, is by natural means; we do not get them by wishing or praying for, but by actual exertion; and the only way to obtain virtue or morality is to practice and habituate ourselves to it, and not to pray to God for it: he has naturally furnished us with talents or faculties suitable for the exercise and enjoyment of religion, and it is our business to improve them aright, or we must suffer the consequences of it. We should conform ourselves to reason, the path of mortal rectitude, and in so doing, we cannot fail of recommending ourselves to God, and to our own consciences. This is all the religion which reason knows or can ever approve of.

 

Read More

Ethan Allen From Philosopedia

Ethan Allen From Philosopedia

Allen, Ethan [Colonel] (21 January 1738 - 12 February 1789)

A hero of the American Revolution, Allen in 1784 wrote, “I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not, strictly speaking, whether I am one or not.” He found trinitarianism “destitute of foundation, and tends manifestly to superstition and idolatry.”

His deistic views were similar to those of Franklin and Jefferson (and to rituals of the Masonic Lodge) as shown in his Reason the Only Oracle of Man (1784). Like a watchmaker, the deists hypothesized, the Supreme Architect created his work, then moved on. Analogously, people who have a watch care little who designed their watch and have no way of determining who actually made it; it is to their benefit to keep the watch repaired and working well–life’s purpose is therefore not to find out which individual or committee made an object, deists explained. They rejected claims of supernatural revelation and of formal religion. With such a philosophy, they skirted the need for a Church of America (inasmuch as the enemy George III could hardly continue to be accepted as God’s representative on earth) and wrote a Constitution placing the onus on man, not outside forces, to rule himself under law.

Reason, the Only Oracle of Man was the first openly anti-Christian book published in North America, and Allen credited many of its ideas to his fellow nonconformist in religious thought, Dr. Thomas Young. The two planned upon writing the book together, but Young died before they could finish it. The book was widely used by Universalists. Shortly after the printing, a fire broke out in the printer’s warehouse and the fearful printer would not agree to publishing any further freethought books. “Ethan Allen’s Bible,” as the book was called among his neighbors, although it may in part have been written by Young, hit hard at Calvinist theology.

Allen “in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress” defeated the British at Fort Ticonderoga, and he was a popular contributor to the secularization and dechristianizing of early American intellectual thought.

The story is told by Valery Countryman, a St. Louis author, that Allen defied a state statute that prohibited smallpox inoculations because they were said to be “a sin against God.” At a local tavern Allen convinced his physician, Thomas Young, to publicly inoculate him. Allen was then quickly arrested for the crime of blasphemy. During the trial he cursed the judge by saying, “May (you) be in Hell a thousand years and every little insipid Devil shall come by and ask why.” Ms. Countryman also describes Allen’s decision to remarry after the death of his estranged spouse. “Do you promise to live in agreement to God’s law?” the officiating judge inquired. “Hold on!” Allen complained. “Whose god are you talking about?” The judge eventually was persuaded to amend the offending phrase to “laws as written in the Book of Nature.”

A little-known section of Israel Potter (1855) by Herman Melville describes Allen during his period of captivity by the British, when he was displayed in the port of Falmouth, “Samson Among the Philistines”:

• Like some baited bull in the ring, crouched the Patagonian-looking captive, handcuffed as before; the grass of the green trampled, and gored up all about him, both by his own movements and those of the people around. Except some soldiers and sailors, these seemed mostly townspeople, collected here out of curiosity. The stranger was outlandishly arrayed in the sorry remains of a half-Indian, half-Canadian sort of dress, consisting of a fawnskin jacket–the fur outside and hanging in ragged tufts–a half-rotten, bark-like belt of wampum; aged breeches of sagathy; bedarned worsted stockings to the knee; old moccasins riddled with holes, their metal tags yellow with salt-water rust; a faded red woolen bonnet, not unlike a Russian night-cap, or a portentous, ensanguined full-moon, all soiled, and stuck about with bits of half-rotted straw. He seemed just broken from the dead leaves in David’s outlawed Cave of Adullam. Unshaven, beard and hair matted, and profuse as a corn-field beaten down by hailstorms, his whole marred aspect was that of some wild beast; but of a royal sort, and unsubdued by the cage.

According to legend, Allen’s wife called for a preacher as he lay dying. The man, although he knew Allen had once stated, “That Jesus Christ was not God is evident from his own words,” attempted to persuade Allen to pray. “Angels are waiting for you,” Allen was told. “Waiting, are they?” Allen retorted. “Well, God damn them, let them wait!”

Vermont eventually erected a forty-two-foot high granite memorial topped by an eight-foot angel decades after Allen’s death and at a site where no one was sure where the body lay. A previous marker had been blasted away by lightning sixty-six years earlier.

 

Read More

Deism Origins of Life & Species.

Edited by Dr. Ben Johnson, Doctor of Divinity, Deist

About the origin of the species and of life itself:

There are multiple theories concerning the origins of the multitude of species of life on Earth that currently exist or have existed in the past:

• Creation Science: One version of this theory teaches that God created all of the species of life, from bacteria to dinosaurs to oak trees, and humans. This happened during less than a week, perhaps 6 to 10 thousand years ago. This is one of many interpretations of the creation stories in the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Creation Science is incompatible with the beliefs of Deism. They accept the conclusions of science that all life did not appear on earth suddenly, recently, and in more or less its present form and diversity. They believe that the fossil record and radiometric dating show that evolution happened over an interval of about 3.5 billion years. "In Deism, Intelligent Design has absolutely nothing to do with the ... Biblical myth of creation." 
• 
  
• Naturalistic evolution: This theory suggests that the evolution of the species from the first one-celled form of life to present day humans took place over about 3.5 billion years as a result of purely natural processes, including natural selection. God was not involved in these processes. This is compatible with the beliefs of most Deists because it allows for a God who set up the world and the rest of the universe, started it up and then left.
• 
  
• Theistic evolution: This theory accepts most of the theory of evolution but suggests that God used evolution as a tool to guide the process towards the eventual development of humans. This is also incompatible with the beliefs of most Deists who believe that God set up a set of natural laws when he initially created the universe about 15 billion years ago. Then God left, and hasn't been actively involved in events on Earth since that time. However, some Deists do believe that God has interfered with species evolution. For them, theistic evolution is a viable theory.
• 
  
• Intelligent design: This theory suggests that there are processes, organs, and designs in nature that could only have been created by an advanced intelligence -- either a deity or deities or some life form that has advanced far beyond what humans are capable of. This designer intervened at multiple times in the history of the Earth. This is also in conflict with the beliefs of most Deists because, like theistic evolution, it is incompatible with belief in an creator God who is now absent.

Not included in the theory of evolution is the study of abiogenesis: the origin of life itself. Evolution only covers the origins of species that developed from the original single-celled life form. There is believed to be no consensus at this time among Deists as to whether the development of the first life from from inanimate matter was an act of creation by God or a natural process without divine intervention.

An article about theistic evolution in Wikipedia states:

"Some deists believe that a Divine Creator initiated a universe in which evolution occurred, by designing the system and the natural laws, although many deists believe that God also created life itself, before allowing it to be subject to evolution. They find it to be undignified and unwieldy for a deity to make constant adjustments rather than letting evolution elegantly adapt organisms to changing environments. 

Are Richard Dawkins' beliefs evolving toward Deism?

In his book "The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins stated that "Creative intelligence's, being evolved, necessarily arrive later in the universe and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it." That is, he does not believe in a creator God. Some commentators have cited this and other passages in Dawkins' writings to assert that he is a strong Atheist: a person who absolutely denies the existence of God.

During In 2005 an Internet site "Edge: The World Question Centre" asked some leading scientists: "What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" Richard Dawkins responded:

"I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe."

Since he admits that he cannot prove that no creator God existed, it would seem that he might be better referred to as an Agnostic: a person who believes that the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproved.

Melanie Phillips wrote a column for The Spectator -- a UK magazine -- suggesting that Dawkins' beliefs are "still evolving" towards Deism. She quotes a debate between Dawkins and John Lennox at Oxford University in which Dawkins said: "A serious case could be made for a deistic God." Phillips speculates that Dawkins still regards belief in the God of the Bible is equivalent to "... believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden." However, an entirely different creator deity just might have existed: one that created and kick-started the universe, but has not been involved with humanity or the rest of the universe since. Unfortunately, this topic was not further pursued during the debate 

In Dawkins's 2006 program "The Root of All Evil?," he says:

Science can't disprove the existence of God. But that does not mean that God exists. There are a million things we can't disprove. The philosopher, Bertrand Russell, had an analogy. Imagine there's a china teapot in orbit around the sun. You cannot disprove the existence of the teapot, because it's too small to be spotted by our telescopes. Nobody but a lunatic would say, 'Well, I'm prepared to believe in the teapot because I can't disprove it.' 

Maybe we have to be technically and strictly agnostic, but in practice we are all teapot atheists.

This last statement, we suspect, reflects Dawkins' true beliefs: that one cannot rigorously disprove or prove the existence of Deism's absent creator God, the Jewish Yahweh, the Christian Trinity or Islam's Allah or Russell's teapot, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Thus one must remain Agnostic unless and until some proof is found. But that does not preclude an individual from having an opinion on the likelihood of any of these seven entities. If forced to make a decision based on the existence of one of these entities, Dawkins would probably assume that none exist. We suspect that he is a technical Agnostic but practical Atheist.

---

Read More

Separation of Church and State?

The founding fathers' views on religion and government

After the recent flap over the 9th circuit court's pledge decision (ruling the added phrase 'under God,' inserted into the pledge in 1954, to be unconstitutional), I've received a lot of requests for the thoughts of the Founding fathers on the issue of Separation of Church and State. At issue is the belief of many mainstream Christians that separation is a later construct of the courts, and never intended by the founders. Another prominent argument is that the founders only opposed the establishment of one Christian sect over another, and not Christianity as a whole. Yet another popular belief is that the first amendment only applies to laws restricting religion, and that the majority should be able to do as they wish, using references to the 'Creator' in documents as a tacit endorsement of Christianity. I believe all of these arguments to be incorrect, and who better to argue the issue than the principal author of the constitution, founders themselves?

Quotes are arranged in a question/answer format, to highlight common arguments.

Argument one: The phrase 'separation of Church and state' is of recent origin, and the concept was not known or promulgated by the founders.

False. The Founders were well aware of the threats posed by religion/state entanglement; it's what gave the world Kings with "divine right."

The exact phrase was first used in Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists, explaining the decision to seperate state and religion:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

James Madison, principal author of the constitution:

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State." (1819).

Argument two: But the founders meant only that no sect of Christianity was to be elevated above another, but still meant our government to be Christian...

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Madison, Annals of Congress, 1789).

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?" (Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)

"Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. " (ibid)

"How a regulation so unjust in itself, so foreign to the authority of Congress, and so hurtful to the sale of public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated bigotry, could have received the countenance of a committee is truly a matter of astonishment ." (Madison, 1785, letter to James Monroe, on a failed attempt by congress to set aside public funds to support churches)

Argument three: But one of the first acts of Congress was to appoint a Christian chaplain!

This they did do, years before the ratification of the bill of rights. Madison's objection:

"The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a tight to govern the minor. " (Memorial and Remonstrance)

"If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense." (Madison, detached memoranda, 1820)

"That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience." (Patrick Henry)

"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country" (George Washington, 1789).

"In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst." (James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered." (ibid)

"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'" (James Madison, Veto, 1811)

"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it was by the indulgence of one class of the people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that those who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it, on all occasions, their effectual support." (George Washington, letter to the Touro Synagogue 1790. )

"We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society." (John Adams)

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses...." (John Adams, 1787)

"...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." (ibid)

Further quotes:

"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith." (Thomas Paine, the Rights of Man)

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the profession of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?" (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason)

 US presidents:

"Let it be henceforth proclaimed to the world that man's conscience was created free; that he is no longer accountable to his fellow man for his religious opinions, being responsible therefore only to his God." (John Tyler)

"I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled." (Millard Fillmore)

"When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read: "All men are created equal except negroes, foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer immigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty--to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy." (Abraham Lincoln)

"Encourage free schools, and resolve that not one dollar of money shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian school. Resolve that neither the state nor nation, or both combined, shall support institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford every child growing up in the land the opportunity of a good common school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistically tenets. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separated." (Ulysses S. Grant)

"We all agree that neither the Government nor political parties ought to interfere with religious sects. It is equally true that religious sects ought not to interfere with the Government or with political parties. We believe that the cause of good government and the cause of religion suffer by all such interference." (Rutherford B. Hayes)

"The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community." (James A. Garfield)

"Because we are unqualifiedly and without reservation against any system of denominational schools, maintained by the adherents of any creed with the help of state aid, therefore, we as strenuously insist that the public schools shall be free from sectarian influences, and, above all, free from any attitude of hostility to the adherents of any particular creed." (Theodore Roosevelt)

"In the experiences of a year of the Presidency, there has come to me no other such unwelcome impression as the manifest religious intolerance which exists among many of our citizens. I hold it to be a menace to the very liberties we boast and cherish." (Warren G. Harding)

"The fundamental precept of liberty is toleration. We cannot permit any inquisition either from within or from without the law or apply any religious test to the holding of office. The mind of America must be forever free." (Calvin Coolidge.)

"I come of Quaker stock. My ancestors were persecuted for their beliefs. Here they sought and found religious freedom. By blood and conviction I stand for religious tolerance both in act and in spirit." (Herbert C. Hoover)

"The lessons of religious toleration--a toleration which recognizes complete liberty of human thought, liberty of conscience--is one which, by precept and example, must be inculcated in the hearts and minds of all Americans if the institutions of our democracy are to be maintained and perpetuated. We must recognize the fundamental rights of man. There can be no true national life in our democracy unless we give unqualified recognition to freedom of religious worship and freedom of education." (Franklin D. Roosevelt)

"Religious and racial persecution is moronic at all times, perhaps the most idiotic of human stupidities." (Harry S. Truman)

"I believe in an America where the separation of Church and State is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him." (John F. Kennedy)

 Another trend I find disturbing is the use of questionable quotes to support positions that are antithetical to the beliefs of the founders. The following collection are quotes commonly used to support anti-separation arguments, none of which can be verified as genuine. Some are outright fabrications.

Unconfirmed quotes:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." attributed to Patrick Henry

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." attributed to George Washington

"Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world." attributed to Benjamin Franklin

"The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be assessory [sic] to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer." attributed to Noah Webster

"There are two powers only which are sufficient to control men, and secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the bayonet." attributed to Noah Webster

"The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion." attributed to Abraham Lincoln

"The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." attributed to Abraham Lincoln

"I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens. " attributed to Thomas Jefferson

False:

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, nor upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God."

attributed to James Madison

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extend, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian." attributed to the The Supreme Court in the Holy Trinity case

"Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe...Religion... [is] the basis and foundation of government." Misquote of James Madison

"The highest glory of the American Revolution is this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. " attributed to John Quincy Adams

 Books covering church/state separation issues.

1. Why the Religious Right Is Wrong

An overview of church/state separation issues, and the war of the religious right on the first amendment.

 2. The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness

The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness-A well written argument for continued separation of church and state.

 

3. The Myth of Christian America

Another book exploring the Separation issue and the arguments of the religious right.

 4. Between Church and State

Written by a Clergyman, this book focuses on issues of public education in a multicultural society, and seeks compromise.

 http://altreligion.about.com/od/deism/tp/separation.htm

Read More

Deism is Making a Positive Difference despite Threats and Ingrained Superstitions

Deism is a very important living philosophy. It is not burdened with man-made dogma masquerading as divine revelation and clergy who pretend they have special insight into the mind of The Supreme Intelligence/God. Below are two emails we recently received which demonstrate the profound good Deism brings to people as well as the danger Deists in Islamic nations face simply by being a Deist. Both emails make very clear the importance of Deists stepping forward to do all they can to promote Deism for the betterment of themselves and of the world. To protect the Deist in the Islamic nation I'm not including his name or the name of his country.

"Am so sorry to inform you that, with all the clear conscience I have over the rationality of Deism and the potential it has to make the world a better place, I have to admit the fact that my life and the hope my parents have for me, is now being threatened. I am right now in a teaching hospital, completing my degree in human medicine, which I will complete in the next six months, but since the last discussion we had with a lecturer and some students on Deism vs Islam, the dishonest men went ahead and changed the whole topic by spreading lies that I am challenging or abusing the prophet Muhammad. They asked students to stop talking to me and now I cannot say I am safe or not. .... Meanwhile, I told them that God (Allah) has guided me back to Islam but I don't know if they can convince people and counter the terrible lies they said. Thank you very much. I will live to wish people understand that they have been deceived. May reason prevail."

His email makes clear that Deist who live in nations where they are free to be Deists openly need to step-up to promote Deism right now so we can eventually see to it that Deists and Deism can survive and prosper all around the world. I know several Deists who routinely risk life and limb in Islamic nations. We owe them a lot!

The second email is from Jack B., a Deist in the US in the Appalachians. He was involved in the Christian sects that believe the Bible is the word of God and that it teaches Christians to handle poisonous snakes (Mark 16:18). His country style reliance on common sense and reason reminds me of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett.

"Corrupt politics and corrupt religions have left people to think of nowhere to find truth but science. So Deism, not making any beliefs beyond what an individual is able to understand, is the only logical thing to us. I live deep in the Appalachian Mountains. Most people here don't identify with the right wing or the left wing as Fox news, CNN, and MSNBC are all hypocrites and liars is known fact by all. There's no atheism, nor are they interested in revealed traditions. Independent thought has always been the starting point of the Hillbilly way of life. It doesn't matter what the elites say, it's what's applied to reason that adds up. The only problem has always been lack of info resources, but not lack of free thought. When everybody else gets worried about the economy and other things the Appalachian people resort to reason, never being negative toward Supreme Deistic thought and always encouraged by the God of Nature to supply their needs and survival by nature and reason alone. The people here never took a side on the north and south issues; they're Deist to the core. They just don't know about Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen and Elihu Palmer. Neither would I had I not taken an interest in history.

"Deism is just an unknown truth because the church makes it my way or the highway to eternal hell. Lucky I had two great aunts deep in the Appalachians who taught me that the Bible was a perspective from a certain group of people and that God was revealed in earth, nature, reason. They knew nothing of Thomas Paine or Locke, not even Ben Franklin, so where did it come from - God given reason. Yes two women successfully come up with no outside info on Deism though they knew not the name, they had the concept. God given reason. Coming from a Jesus religion Deism was a conversion but I knew in my heart, mind, body and soul Jesus never handled a snake and it was a desperate plea to make God act as if we could and why wouldn't he already know that we glorify and respect his intelligence and wonderful creation without such acts as to try to dictate to him what we need when he has given us an amount of discovery through science and reason to relate to him and not earn his love. We must be patient, enlightenment to Deism will come."

by Bob Johnson  Edited by Ben Johnson

Read More

Deism and Christianity by Bill McCracken

I thought it would be interesting to consider what Deism shares with the Christian religion. This topic could be a bit tricky because Deists have no set of codified beliefs. We consider ourselves to be free-thinkers, so we don’t tell each other what to believe. But, in a nutshell, Deists believe in God as revealed in nature, and then use reason to determine for ourselves our other personal beliefs and practices. This makes me reluctant to speak for all Deists everywhere, so I’ll just share the similarities that I know of.    In the first place, modern Deism grew out of Christianity. The earliest Deists, at least in America, were members of churches, usually Anglican. They believed in God. They appreciated and tried to follow Jesus’ teachings, especially the Golden Rule and the importance of loving God and others (something I still hold to). But they also realized that the Church held to many beliefs which just didn’t seem to line up with progressive human understanding. For instance, they questioned the doctrine of the Virgin Birth because everyone knows it takes a male and a female to produce a child. They didn't believe that God impregnates people. They questioned the Christian doctrine that everyone is born evil (Original Sin). They also rejected the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement, the notion that Jesus had to die in order for God to forgive our sins. So while the Deists affirmed the reality of the Creator and the core teachings of Jesus Christ, they dared to question whether or not Church doctrines or biblical doctrines really line up with reality, with how we know the world really works. But they still affirmed, along with Christians, that God is real and that Jesus taught us how to live good lives.  Another strong tie that Deism has with what Jesus taught is a reverence for nature. Many, if not most, of Jesus’ parables concerned nature – plants, seeds, tree, water, fire, farming, the sun, the wind. He was quite the “country boy” and used stories about nature to illustrate what human relationships to God and to each other should look like. Like Jesus, Deists looked around them at nature and found, not only evidence for God, but spiritual lessons that can teach us how to love, appreciate, and care for one another.  Many Deists consider Jesus to be a great teacher, perhaps an extremely enlightened person who had keen insight into how to relate to God as a Father and to humanity as brothers and sisters. Deists also strongly believe in Jesus’ social gospel of helping others. And many Deists, though not all, believe in some sort of afterlife, another subject that Christianity focuses on.  If Christianity consisted only of the central teachings of Jesus concerning loving God and others, many Deists might consider themselves to be Christians. But Christianity has added many, many other doctrines to its religion over the years that go far beyond what Jesus taught, and Deists find many of these added doctrines to often be irrational, superstitious, and sometimes harmful. Because of all the “extra baggage” that Christianity currently has, most Deists would probably not choose to self-identify as Christians.

As I mentioned in Part 1, Deism in America began in the Church, within Christianity. But it also had a bit of a “love/hate” relationship with Christianity that has not quite abated. Deists affirmed, along with Christians, that God is our Creator and that the creation is good and shows God’s handiwork. And it also often affirmed the central teachings of Jesus about loving God, loving others, and making our world a better place. But it didn’t agree with the Church that all knowledge was confined to the Bible. It didn’t agree with the Church that we had nothing left to learn about ourselves or our universe other than what the Church or the Bible says. Deists embraced the “new knowledge” of the Enlightenment, advances gained in the fields of science, medicine, astronomy, sociology, and even psychology. Deists strongly felt that God was the source of all truth and that God has continued to lead us into truths that people in the Bible days just weren’t privy to. Can you imagine trying to explain to a Roman soldier or a Jewish peasant how an inoculation shot works? Deists embraced these advances in the sciences and in the arts, even in theology (how we think about God), and felt that humanity needed to grow up and out of some of the superstitions of the past.    The Church, to a large degree, was extremely slow in accepting any new knowledge. It felt that everything God wanted us to know was either found in the Bible (for Protestants) or found in the Vatican (for Catholics) or found in the Church Fathers (for Eastern Orthodox). Granted, the Church has made some strides over the last few decades, but let’s be honest, it only recently allowed for inter-racial marriages and it still is opposed to gays “because the Bible says so.” Deists don’t feel that all knowledge is confined to the Bible or the Church. They feel that God teaches us through everything in life and that we should never stop growing. Our beliefs, think most Deists, should come from what we think, given the information and wisdom available to us now, not just residual knowledge held onto simply because people 2000 years ago believed they knew all truth.  So this is where the relationship between Deism and Christianity can sometimes be strained. Deism accepts and incorporates new knowledge wherever it finds it, using reasoning as a measuring stick to judge truth. Christianity looks primarily to the past for what it believes is truth, to the way people thought and believed from 2000 to 4000 years ago. If you were sick, would you want to go to a doctor that only had the medical training from the first century? Or would you want a doctor with the latest in medical training? Similarly, if you want to understand God, would you consider only what people 2000 years ago had to say? Or would you want to consider other sources? Granted, some things from the past, many things in fact, are worth holding onto. But not if it no longer makes sense (like keeping women out of church pulpits) or if it is superstition (like believing God impregnates people) or if it is harmful, as many of the supposed commands of God in the Bible are.  Nevertheless, Deism usually does not wish to be “anti-Christian”. Christianity is a good religion, as far as it goes. But not everything in Christianity is good. And Deism wants to be known more for what it is for than what it is against.

Read More

Bogus Quotes Attributed to the Founders

 

Introduction

Quotes that were never made by the Founders, but refuse to die, especially on the Internet, are discussed.

 The "Liberty Teeth" Speech by George Washington

 Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon, and citizen's firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place with all that's good. When firearms, go all goes; we need them every hour.

         --- Falsely attributed to George Washington, address to the second session of the first U.S. Congress.

 This quotation, sometimes called the "liberty teeth" quote, appears nowhere in Washington's papers or speeches, and contains several historical anachronisms: the reference to "prairie wagon" in an America which had yet to even begin settling the Great Plains (which were owned by France at the time), the reference to "the Pilgrims" which implies a modern historical perspective, and particularly the attempt by "Washington" to defend the utility of firearms (by use of statistics!) to an audience which would have used firearms in their daily lives to obtain food, defend against hostile Indians, and which had only recently won a war for independence.

 The "99 99/100 percent" is also an odd phrase for 18th century America, which tended not to use fractional percentages. It's clear that "Washington" is addressing "gun control" arguments which wouldn't exist for another couple of centuries, not to mention doing so in a style that is uncharacteristic of the period, and uncharacteristic of Washington's addresses to Congress, both of which exhibited a high degree of formality.

This is a false quote, but bits and pieces of it still continue to crop up from time to time. Even national publications, such as Playboy magazine, have been snared by it. (Playboy published the "quote" in December 1995 as part of an article entitled "Once and for All: What the Founding Fathers Said About Guns". After consulting with an assistant editor of the George Washington Papers at the University of Virginia, Playboy published a lengthy correction in March 1996.)

 The above analysis (by Clayon Cramer) was taken in part from a "talk.politics.guns" usenet FAQ. (Original source: Cramer, Clayton, Firing Back, 1995. Used by permission of the author.)

 The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) also comments (excerpted with permission) on the liberty teeth speech as follows: "This has several variations including 'hour' for 'moment' and sometimes added as part of an actual Washington quote 'A free people ought not only to be armed...' The various citations are even more numerous than different wordings: Address to the Second Session of the First U.S. Congress; Speech to Congress of January 7, 1790, printed in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790; the Federalist No. 53; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1785."

 SAF mentions another fabricated George Washington quote:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

 SAF's analysis from the same page follows:

 While this quote is often attributed to George Washington in his Farewell Address, this quote cannot be found there. Many people have tried to verify its origin, but cannot confirm its authenticity.

 Dan Gifford tried to track this quote down but was unsuccessful for his article. See: "The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason", The Tennessee Law Review: A Second Amendment Symposium Issue, Page 801, footnote 201. This issue of the Tennessee Law Review is part of the SAF bookshelf.

 Perhaps the American Freedom Library available from Laissez Faire Books features the best history of this alleged quote on their Version 3.1 CD-ROM. The searchable CD-ROM notes that the above statement is:

 "Attributed to George Washington.--Frank J. Wilstach, A Dictionary of Similes, 2d ed., p. 526 (1924). This can be found with minor variations in wording and in punctuation, and with 'fearful' for 'troublesome,' in George Seldes, The Great Quotations, p. 727 (1966). Unverified. In his most recent book of quotations, The Great Thoughts (1985), Seldes Says, p. 441, col. 2, footnote, this paragraph 'although credited to the 'Farewell' [address] cannot be found in it. Lawson Hamblin, who owns a facsimile, and Horace Peck, America's foremost authority on quotations, informed me this paragraph is apocryphal [fake].'"

 And yet another bogus Washington quote:

 A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government

 The actual quote:

 A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.

          ---George Washington's First Annual Message to Congress (January 8, 1790)

 More Bogus Quotes

 The following quotes from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are likewise fictional. The quotes are not to be found in their speeches, personal correspondence, or diaries. Nor have the quotes ever been cited in law journals by Second Amendment legal scholars.

 The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

          --- Falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson.

 Occasionally the Jefferson quote is given with the following citation: Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950). The publication exists, but the quote does not. The editor's correct name is Julian P. Boyd, not C.J. Boyd.

 Sometimes the quote appears with Jefferson's, "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms", which is taken from his proposal for Virginia's constitution of 1776. The bogus quote has appeared both before the "No freeman..." sentence and after it. However in reality, the "tyranny" portion of the quote is absent from Jefferson's draft.

 The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

          --- More bogus Thomas Jefferson.

 

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.

          --- Falsely attributed to James Madison.

 The false Madison quote, less frequently seen, does crop-up, so far never with a reference. The exact words appear in Pennsylvania's Constitution of 1790 and is probably the source (or inspiration) of this erroneous attribution.

 Although not directly related to the Second Amendment or gun control issues these two quotes are fake as well:

 The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first..

          --- Falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson.

 If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

          --- Falsely attributed to James Madison.

 Jumbling John Adams

 Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense.

The quote above was even mistakenly cited by the NRA-ILA in 1996, and was on the NRA's Web site until at least early 1998 (and has spread to many personal Web pages). (Original NRA page preserved here. The erroneous Adams quote appears near the bottom of the page.)

 Less common, and worse:

 Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self defense.

 The correct quote:

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

          ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

 As David Hardy explains, "Adams was thus mindful of the uses of arms (i.e., legitimate self-defense and militia duty) and concerned about misuse for mob action or anarchy." (The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights, 1987)

 

Read More